Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This revision petition is barred by period of limitation of 574 days. No application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay has been filed. No reasons have been assigned which prevented the petitioner to file the revision petition within the period of limitation. 2. By the instant revision petition under Section 397/401, CrPC, the petitioner complainant has challenged the order dated 20.12.2002 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu (for short ‘the trial Court’ hereinafter) in Criminal Case No.123/1997 whereby the trial Court acquitted the non-petitioners of the offences under Sections 147, 336, 337 and 427, IPC. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the Judgment and order impugned. Even on merit, the petitioner has no case. The trial Court, on proper appreciation of evidence produced by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. I do not file any error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned. On the contrary, the order of the trial Court is based on sound and proper appreciation of the evidence. It was a State case and State did not file leave to appeal or appeal before this Court. The scope of revision by a private party against acquittal is very limited in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harihar Chakarvarty vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 266 and Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, (now Jharkhand) reported in AIR 2002 SCW 3315 . There appears to be no error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned. In the circumstances, therefore, even on merits I find no merit in the revision petition. Thus, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of being barred by limitation as also on merit. 4. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.